(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

More Complex than Assumption Based On Experience

Based on what we’ve just seen, we realize what’s happening here is more complex than just assumptions based on previous experiences. Bill Nye thinks his assumptions aren’t arbitrary, but all assumptions are arbitrary. He bases these assumptions on his arbitrary worldview. Why are worldviews arbitrary? All worldviews go beyond experience, observation, and divine revelation. Powerful social forces press for conformity in assumptions. This coercion from peer pressure makes Bill’s assumptions even more deceptive. Those pressing for conformity shun, exclude, or punish those who don’t conform. Those in control find ways to hurt anyone who doesn’t conform. Those who don’t conform lose money and opportunity. Then the fallacy of groupthink enters. It gives the illusion the assumptions have substance.

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

Bill Nye admits he bases his thoughts on assumptions and still justifies this irrationality by saying he bases assumptions on experience. However, assumptions don’t come from experience directly as we’ve proved. While our experiences may be part of our thinking, we interpret our experiences by filtering them through our existing worldviews. Worldviews act like a thick veil to keep us from seeing reality directly. Only God can pull this veil away, and He does that whenever we yield to the Holy Spirit’s leading. Then, we automatically add the filtered impressions of experiences back into our worldviews as confirmation bias. As a result, our worldviews feel real. And confirmation bias reinforces the real-feel of the worldview. So when our assumptions and made-up stories come out of our worldviews, they seem more real than reality. We think our assumptions are real because our worldviews seem more real than reality. It’s deception. That’s why assumptions can seem obviously true. But all assumptions are illusions, and no assumptions are obviously true.

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

But the question is whether we can use assumptions as a way of knowing. And we can’t. We try to avoid assuming because assuming is making up stuff and pretending what we made up is real. A chain of thought or a line of reasoning is only as strong as the weakest link. And assumptions are the weakest link we can get. But, we sometimes base our thinking on assumptions even though we try to avoid assuming. Because of the deceptive nature of worldviews from which assumptions come, we often don’t realize we’re assuming.

(end quote)

UNGODLY THINKERS LOSE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ASSUMPTION AND OBSERVATION.

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

“Then, by the way, the fundamental thing that we disagree on, Mr. Ham, is this nature of what you can prove to yourself. This is to say, when people make assumptions based on radiometric dating, when they make assumptions about the expanding universe, when they make assumptions about the rate at which genes change in populations of bacteria in laboratory growth media, they’re making assumptions based on previous experience. They’re not coming out of whole cloth.” ~ Bill Nye

“assumptions about the rate at which genes change in populations of bacteria in laboratory growth media”

Why would we need to assume this rate? We can test and observe the rate at which genes change in populations of bacteria, but we can’t test assumptions. When Bill makes a statement like this one, we can see that he’s confused about the nature of assumptions. Specifically, he lost the contrast between assumption and observation. Could it be that he no longer knows the difference? Or is he doing whatever it takes to “win” an argument even if it takes crafty flimflam? We’re not picking on Bill since we’re probably all guilty of flimflam sometimes because the fallen fleshly nature likes to “win” and hates to “lose.” Again, we can’t look into Bill’s mind to see why he made these claims, but we can see that he wasn’t speaking rationally.

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

“Then, by the way, the fundamental thing that we disagree on, Mr. Ham, is this nature of what you can prove to yourself. This is to say, when people make assumptions based on radiometric dating, when they make assumptions about the expanding universe, when they make assumptions about the rate at which genes change in populations of bacteria in laboratory growth media, they’re making assumptions based on previous experience. They’re not coming out of whole cloth.” ~ Bill Nye

…

“assumptions about the expanding universe”

We can’t test assumptions about a supposed “expanding universe,” and contrary to what some people say, no one has observed an “expanding universe.” We do know God has expanded the universe in the past, and we know that by divine revelation. But how does Bill think he knows it’s expanding now? Admittedly, we can observe parts of the universe and assume nonsense. We can start from those observations and move smoothly to assumptions. From these assumptions, we can imagine an “expanding universe.” (Jake Hebert, Ph.D., Big Bang Blowup at Scientific American) Therefore, scientists interpret observations as a story about an “expanding universe,” and those who interpret it this way base this interpretation on assumptions. But Bill’s phrase presupposes a currently “expanding universe” using assumptive language. It’s worse than that. Bill oversimplified the problem. Scientists add more assumptions to the extrapolation of previous assumptions. They then use these assumptions to become dogmatic about their shaky conclusions. They finish with irrational conclusions based on layers of assumptions.

For instance, scientists base all radiometric dating on assumptions. Scientists must assume the conditions at time zero. The scientists who believe in billions of years assume zero contamination over time. They also assume a constant decay rate. They’re extrapolating back in time, but the further they extrapolate beyond what they observe, the more unreliable their calculations become. These scientists may think they’re using sound inductive logic, but they have left reality and spun away into the land of make-believe. They can’t prove any of their extrapolations with observation or experience. If they’re wrong on even one of their assumptions, they deceive themselves and anyone who believes them.

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

Scientists observe and test. Then they make assumptions. Based on the assumptions, they calculate an age for the earth. These calculations don’t lead to tentative answers. They lead to arbitrary but precise answers. Arbitrary thinking is irrational.

Since they use the same assumptions, equipment, and methods they get precise answers. Since they ignore answers they didn’t expect they only report consistent answers. Since they always use assumptions, they get arbitrary answers. Their answers are consistently and precisely arbitrary.

(end quote)

There’s a difference between precision and accuracy. It’s possible to have precise answers that are wrong.

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

For example, scientists observe and test. Then they make assumptions. Based on the assumptions, they calculate an age for the earth. These calculations don’t lead to tentative answers. They lead to arbitrary but precise answers. Arbitrary thinking is irrational.

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

Assumption-based thinking is amazingly versatile since, once an ungodly thinker accepts reasoning based on made-up stuff, this ungodly thinker can prove anything the ungodly thinker wants to believe. If an ungodly thinker accepts made-up stuff as proof, then the ungodly thinker can use made-up stuff as proof to “prove” that we should accept made-up stuff as proof. Yes. That logic is insane because it’s circular. And made-up stuff can also “prove” that divine revelation can’t be proof. Anything goes in this make-believe world of an insane person. And ungodly thinkers find this insane logic handy when they want to question the truth they hate but also want to avoid questioning the lies they love.

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

Assumption-based thinking is a house of cards since we pull our assumptions from our worldviews, and we create our worldviews from previous assumptions we pulled from our worldviews of the past. And yet ungodly schools teach students to be dogmatic about assumption-based thinking. The students then know they’re right because they’ve learned to be dogmatic. They’ve learned to avoid thinking rationally. They’ve learned “it’s sane to reason using premises that are mere assumptions.” They’ve learned to debate using irrational thinking and debate tricks (fallacies). They’ve learned irrational thinking is “logical thinking” and “critical thinking,” when it’s insanity.

(end quote)

Continued comment on Bill Nye defending assumptions as the basis of thought

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

“Then, by the way, the fundamental thing that we disagree on, Mr. Ham, is this nature of what you can prove to yourself. This is to say, when people make assumptions based on radiometric dating, when they make assumptions about the expanding universe, when they make assumptions about the rate at which genes change in populations of bacteria in laboratory growth media, they’re making assumptions based on previous experience. They’re not coming out of whole cloth.” ~ Bill Nye

…

this package-deal fallacy is why he implied there’s no difference between scientific observation and historical storytelling.

For instance, Bill said, “make assumptions based on radiometric dating.” The term “radiometric dating” implies there’s an accurate way to measure dates. However, we can’t observe or measure the age of the earth directly but only through assumptions (axiomatic-thinking fallacies) and circular reasoning. Therefore, all secular dating methods interpret observations based on assumptions and circular reasoning. Scientists and “educators” often confuse assumptions with reality and insist it’s OK to base thinking on made-up stuff. That makes matters worse.

Of course, they’ll find a way to put a smokescreen over this made-up stuff using deceptive language. It’s rare for a scientist to admit the calculated dates are no more valid than the made-up stuff used to calculate those dates, even though they should admit it. But by refusing to admit this lack of validity, scientists confuse assumptions with reality. That’s why they speak of billions of years dogmatically and rarely admit they base their claims on made-up stuff. They think they’re objective and honest.

(end quote)